Smith v. HERCULES CONSTRUCTION CORPORATION
| Decision Date | 17 July 2000 |
| Parties | JOHN T. SMITH et al., Appellants,<BR>v.<BR>HERCULES CONSTRUCTION CORPORATION et al., Respondents. (And Other Titles.) |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Ordered that the judgment is modified, on the law, by deleting therefrom the provision granting those branches of the defendants' respective motions which were to dismiss the plaintiffs' causes of action sounding in common-law negligence and violation of Labor Law § 200 and substituting therefor a provision denying those branches of the defendants' respective motions, and severing those causes of action; as so modified, the judgment is affirmed, without costs or disbursements, and the matter is remitted to the Supreme Court, Queens County, for a new trial on those causes of action only.
In June 1992 the injured plaintiff was employed by a subcontractor installing a sprinkler system at Port Richmond High School in Richmond County. When he went to borrow some pipe from the defendant Cox Mechanical Contracting, Inc. (hereinafter Cox), another subcontractor on the same project, he allegedly tripped and fell on a piece of pipe that Cox employees had left on the floor. The plaintiff and his wife then commenced the instant action against Cox and the defendant Hercules Construction Corporation (hereinafter Hercules), the general contractor on the project, to recover damages, inter alia, for personal injuries allegedly sustained. The plaintiffs, inter alia, asserted causes of action sounding in common-law negligence and violations of Labor Law §§ 200 and 241 (6). At the close of the plaintiffs' case at trial, Cox and Hercules each moved to dismiss to the complaint pursuant to CPLR 4401 on the ground that the plaintiff failed to establish a prima facie case. The trial court granted the motion, and the plaintiffs appeal.
"It is well-settled that a motion to dismiss a complaint for failure to establish a prima facie case should only be granted if, upon viewing the evidence in a light most favorable to the plaintiff, there is no rational process by which a jury could find for the plaintiff and against the moving defendant" (DiGiovanni v Rausch, 226 AD2d 420; see, CPLR 4401). Applying this standard to the instant case, the trial court improperly granted those branches of the respective motions of Cox and Hercules which were to dismiss the plaintiffs' common-law negligence and Labor Law § 200 causes of action at the close of the plaintiffs' case. The plaintiffs established a prima facie case that Cox was negligent in leaving a piece of pipe, on which the injured plaintiff tripped and fell, on the floor in a doorway. They established a prima facie case that Cox created the allegedly dangerous condition, and that Hercules had "the authority to control the activity bringing about the injury to enable it to avoid or correct an unsafe condition" (Russin v Picciano & Son, 54 NY2d 311, 317; see, Rizzuto v Wenger Contr. Co., 91 NY2d 343, 352).
Contrary to the plaintiffs' contention, however, the trial court providently exercised its discretion in denying them leave to amend their bill of particulars in support of their cause of action under Labor Law § 241 (6), to refer to sections of the Industrial...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
King v. Marwest, LLC
...excuse for her delay in seeking the amendment (see Kirk v. Nahon, 160 A.D.3d at 824, 75 N.Y.S.3d 237 ; Smith v. Hercules Constr. Corp., 274 A.D.2d 467, 468, 711 N.Y.S.2d 453 ), and the proposed amendment was prejudicial to the defendant (see Anonymous v. Gleason, 175 A.D.3d at 618, 106 N.Y.......
-
Jelic v. Mirasol
...Heller v. Louis Provenzano, Inc., 303 A.D.2d, at 21 (denying amendment of bill of particulars after trial); Smith v. Hercules Constr. Corp., 274 A.D.2d 467 (2d Dept. 2000) (denying amendment of bill of particulars on eve of trial because, among other things, it was late in violation of a pr......
-
Pitre v. City of New York
...Labor Law § 241(6) cause of action ( see Owen v. Commercial Sites, 284 A.D.2d 315, 725 N.Y.S.2d 574; Smith v. Hercules Constr. Corp., 274 A.D.2d 467, 468, 711 N.Y.S.2d 453). Contrary to the plaintiffs' contention, the Supreme Court did not err in denying their motion pursuant to CPLR 4401 f......
-
Wasson v. Barba
...to establish a prima facie case against it. Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the plaintiff (see, Smith v. Hercules Constr. Corp., 274 A.D.2d 467), there was sufficient evidence from which the jury could rationally conclude that the City was negligent and that its negligen......